this would work if we only didit try so hard to babyproof the whole nation. stupid is what stupid does and eventually the really stupid ones get into the Darwin awards and help the clensing of the gene pool. But with stupid politicians at the helm trying to Politically correct the nanny state they are trying to create it kinda provides assylum fo all retards:)

The genes you destroy aren't necessarily the ones which would impact survival, and the genes you allow would not necessarily allow for survival. Eugenics based on intelligence does not even get past the logical starting gate in the first place because there isn't necessarily an intelligence gene and there is no assurance that intelligence alone will aid in our survival.

Eugenics based on intelligence does not even get past the logical starting gate in the first place because there isn't necessarily an intelligence gene and there is no assurance that intelligence alone will aid in our survival.

There likely isn't an "intelligence gene" but the number one predictor of individual accomplishment in life is parental achievement. There have been interesting twin studies where the twins, raised in different environments, ended up with quite similar lives. So the evidence points to some level of intelligence being hereditary. Sure, there isn't necessarily an intelligence gene, but evidence shows a hereditary link.

Do you actually believe that intelligence isn't hereditary, or are you just arguing for the fun of it?

You're assuming "parental achievement" equals "intelligence". This, to my knowledge, is not true. Yes, probably some values of "intelligence" help, but intelligence brings its problems too, and it's also obvious that charisma, strength, agility etc. also help "achievement" a great deal. So yes, while "achievement" seems to be hereditary to a significant degree, that doesn't say much about intelligence.

Intelligence definitely depends on genes. A pine tree is not as intelligent as I am, and the difference can be said to be in the genes. But there's not many sane conclusions to make. Shoe size also obviously depends on genes, but I still have a different size than my parents. I'm also different height, look different etc etc.

I think that probably most of variation in intelligence, as measured by Mensa in logic tests, doesn't come from genetics, though.

Intelligence is (in the vernacular, at least) defined not only by knowledge and processing power (IQ being tested as mainly processing power), but the ability to employ that in situations. And the ability to function in society is a form of useful intelligence that leads to success.

If you define intelligence as the ability to function in a society, then there's no wonder (and no merit) in finding that this correlates with success in functioning in a society!

I recall intelligence being defined as the capability of functioning in a meaningful way in new situations, such that it doesn't depend on stuff you learned before. This still incorporates a wide variety of traits (and genetic effects), but at least clearly rules out "knowledge".

I like to think Intelligence is measured in IQ (certainly many people assume that in their work), and thus intelligence is what the tests measure. That's the most exact definition you can get;-). And the tests deliberately try to not measure knowledge.

If I recall correctly, the most successful tend to have an IQ like 120. Higher than that, and the "success" starts to drop. But then, there's also problems (and very serious ones) in the ways we measure success!

Yes. If a mind wants to turn on, it will, and pretty much any of them can. Most prefer to waste away watching sitcoms or ET. C'est la vie.

There's plenty of examples of children of exceptional people who turned out to be extraordinarily boring/normal. People who choose to use their heads productively are the exception. It takes will power and effort; things that most people can't be bothered to expend.

I also chose "the human mind" and I think education will have to go hand in hand with fixing stupidity. It's not just about educating savages so that they can take part in civilization rather than taking it down, but also finding the best and the brightest and educating them to do accomplish great things. As technology grows more and more complex, it will take more study to gain a mastery of the existing subject matter, and many breakthroughs will come from interdisciplinary work. In Star Trek, it seems like everybody has at least 2 or 3 PhDs in different subjects. Even operations ensigns dabble in quantum engineering as a hobby, pilots study anthropology for fun. Yes, Star Trek is just a show, but it does highlight the fact that efficient and effective educational systems are needed to develop the people that our society will need to explore the subjects listed in this poll.

Well, if fixing the human mind means fixing human nature we're probably SOL. If we can accept it rather than live our lives in denial following some book to try and make things right, that'd be more progress than we've made in the last several thousand years. People aren't anymore equal to each other than the jock who kicks the nerd's ass after practice, but winds up working for the nerd a couple decades down the line.

In regards to baby proofing, it gets a little more complicated than you make it out to seem, so say stop signs are annoying right? Let's go get rid of stop signs and let the retards crash into each other and die right? More space on the road, and less dumbasses trying to cut you off right? Wrong, you're a top tier driver, you're driving down some road you don't know at night, take a glance at your gps, miss the intersection, and your gone. Not very fair is it?

No idea how to fix it though, as long as the $'s there, why bother I guess. $ counts for more than most.

Disagree completely. Jefferson et all were absolutely correct when they considered the public to be the best watchers of the public good - because when things affect people directly, they pay attention.
The problems we face now have much more to do with corporations being able to pay enough to soak the airwaves with propaganda. The phrase "nanny state" is often a good indicator of the success of this propaganda - it means that people are blaming the poor for what the government's doing rather than the rich and powerful who are most often ignoring the best interests of the poor and middle class as much as possible.

Disagree completely. Jefferson et all were absolutely correct when they considered the public to be the best watchers of the public good - because when things affect people directly, they pay attention.
The problems we face now have much more to do with corporations being able to pay enough to soak the airwaves with propaganda. The phrase "nanny state" is often a good indicator of the success of this propaganda

The phrase "nanny state" often indicates that people haven't and aren't capable of thinking objectively about an issue. It's the same as "socialist" and "fascist". These are all highly emotive words meant to discorage meaningful thought and conversation on a subject.

More specifically "nanny state" tends to be used in anti-government propaganda which is often used by powerful, non governmental organisations wishing to effect change on a government policy they disagree with. This is why Newscorp publications tend to be full of "nanny state" implications.

That's mostly the work of lawyers and insurance adjusters. The laws are (mostly) OK, but when you've got the threat of someone suing you for $3M if they slip and break their head, and your insurance company only agreeing to indemnify you if you force everybody to use walkers, you're stuck between a rock an a hard place.

Lack of health care is part of the problem. If the only way to pay your hospital bill is to sue the people who's sidewalk you fell on, then only the lawyers go away winners.

I live in Canada where basic health insurance is a given. If I get hurt, I go to the hospital.period. No questions ask. I never really considered what it's like for Americans until a friend of mine, visiting from the states fell and smacked his head. All of us Canadians were going "Dude, we should take you to the hospital to get checked out for a possible concussion."

He Freaked out.

"Dude, we're only going to the hospital to get your head checked out."

"The last time I did that, I ended up with a $20,000 second mortgage that I'm still paying off!"

You must not supplement your coffee with additives. My experimentation has uncovered sugar, milk, and some forms of alcohol may be added without absolutely ruining the drink. Future experiments with protein additives are planned. I'm not sure why, but my intuition tells me that powered bacon should be next.

Yep. You'd think those surprised by the election's results would would come to question the quality of the information sources that led them to those conclusions- and from there, the ideology that made them so easily misled. But, nope - this is all in the blind spot, so the closest it can come to visibility is through projection.

All we'll do is shift the goal posts. The dumbest human alive today is much more intelligent than Joe Average in the 10th century (ymmv...). And they were themselves considerably smarter than the crowd around at year dot.

And we'll all be considered much dumber when compared to the kid stuck in the corner for failing "Basic Space Piloting skills" in Kindergarten in the year 2500.

That's not how it's done. We don't say we are smarter than someone from the 1700s because we can drive better than they can. Only today's stupid make such comparisons so they can feel better about being stupid. The guy failing basic piloting skills may laugh at us, but mainly because he knows he's stupider, so it's about ego, not intelligence. I'm not smarter than Samuel Clements or Shakespeare, or Isaac Newton, but I know how to work a computer better than any of them. So I can always think of myself as smarter if it makes me feel better.

Only today's stupid make such comparisons so they can feel better about being stupid.

So true. It bothers me when I hear people parrot "we're living in a more complex world now". No, we're not. Every basic need is addressed with trivial ease now that we have shifted the burden of work to corporate-structured entities like businesses and governments.

Want to eat? Give 99 cents to Walmart for a can of beans trucked into town from a cannery in another state. Don't have 99 cents? Get food stamps. Done.

Embarking on a long journey? Step into car, apply right foot as needed. Done.

Want to have a conversation with someone from across the world? Internet. Done.

We're all so used to having our basic needs met through organization that most of us would freeze to death if our car broke down on a lonely road in a snowstorm; we have no clue how our technology works, and no knowledge of how to fix it. It's interesting how many recent films, tv shows, and novels take place in a "shit-hits-the-fan" scenario where organized society breaks down and most everyone is helpless because there's no more easy food, water, and electricity as the state of nature is restored.

We're all so used to having our basic needs met through organization that most of us would freeze to death if our car broke down on a lonely road in a snowstorm; we have no clue how our technology works, and no knowledge of how to fix it. It's interesting how many recent films, tv shows, and novels take place in a "shit-hits-the-fan" scenario where organized society breaks down and most everyone is helpless because there's no more easy food, water, and electricity as the state of nature is restored.

If your car breaks down on a lonely road in a snowstorm, you're going to freeze to death if you go outside and try to fix it. You probably don't have enough tools or supplies on you to do so, and poking around outside in the hope that it's fixable is a good way to waste a lot of energy and heat on a lost cause.

We're all so used to having our basic needs met through organization that most of us would freeze to death if our car broke down on a lonely road in a snowstorm;

If your car breaks down on a lonely road in a snowstorm, you're going to freeze to death if you go outside and try to fix it. You probably don't have enough tools or supplies on you to do so, and poking around outside in the hope that it's fixable is a good way to waste a lot of energy and heat on a lost cause.

You're also going to freeze to death if you don't plan ahead and stock your auto with food, water, blankets, and other basics, regardless of whether or not you exit the vehicle.

Steel gets really, really cold when it's encased in frozen water for long enough.

- snow shelters are often dug into the ground, which is made of dirt that stays around ~65 degrees F.
- car bodies are made of steel; more specifically, very thin sheet steel, which exchanges heat at a much, much higher rate than snow-packed dirt.

- cars are not sealed chambers, so up until the point that the vehicle is totally encased in frozen water, air will be flowing through the ventilation system in and out of the passenger compartment, further chilling the vehicle's interior.

- once the car is completely covered, you don't have to worry about cold air coming in through the vents; instead, you get to slowly asphyxiate as the oxygen depletes from the now-sealed steel sarcophagus you're inhabiting.

In this particular scenario, whether or not you decide to stay in the vehicle is far, far less important to survival than how well you're prepared for the event.

- snow shelters are often dug into the ground, which is made of dirt that stays around ~65 degrees F.

65 degrees? Are you serious?

- cars are not sealed chambers, so up until the point that the vehicle is totally encased in frozen water, air will be flowing through the ventilation system in and out of the passenger compartment, further chilling the vehicle's interior.

Maybe just close the vents?

- once the car is completely covered, you don't have to worry about cold air coming in through the vents; instead, you get to slowly asphyxiate as the oxygen depletes from the now-sealed steel sarcophagus you're inhabiting.

- snow shelters are often dug into the ground, which is made of dirt that stays around ~65 degrees F.

65 degrees? Are you serious?

Around 65 degrees; yes. Feel free to introduce any data that you think dispute that.

- cars are not sealed chambers, so up until the point that the vehicle is totally encased in frozen water, air will be flowing through the ventilation system in and out of the passenger compartment, further chilling the vehicle's interior.

Maybe just close the vents?

Doesn't work that way; there are certain vent points on a car that cannot be closed - otherwise, when you "close the vents" on the HVAC system, you'd suffocate.

- once the car is completely covered, you don't have to worry about cold air coming in through the vents; instead, you get to slowly asphyxiate as the oxygen depletes from the now-sealed steel sarcophagus you're inhabiting.

Slight problem with your 'example' here - it specifically refers to how long it would take for a single person to run out of oxygen in a 5m X 15m x 5m room. Unless all your friends happen to drive school bus', I don't think you're going to find many people's cars have 10,000 cubic feet of interior space.

Underground temperature mirrors with a delay that of the air above it. Somewhere where you're likely to need a snow shelter, and have enough snow to do it, the ground's probably at or below freezing (otherwise it would melt the snow away). The temperature doesn't change very much, unless you're prepared to dig many meters of dirt.

The reason it might be convenient to dig to the ground is that your body heat won't melt snow and make everything wet. That said, I've been (shortly) trained to make a snow shelter, and we did not dig to the ground but rather had a snow floor. That might be useful for its insulating properties - lying down on freezing ground makes you very, very cold indeed pretty quickly.

That's the average yearly temp for what geographic reigon? There doesn't really seem to be a valid source for that number in the link. The questioner lived in San Diego, not exactly a place you'd be in a snow storm.

That said, I've been (shortly) trained to make a snow shelter, and we did not dig to the ground but rather had a snow floor. That might be useful for its insulating properties - lying down on freezing ground makes you very, very cold indeed pretty quickly.

Either way, you're going to want a layer of something to insulate you from the ground. I recommend (assuming you don't have a space blanket or other sort of artificial ground cover) pine boughs.

We're all so used to having our basic needs met through organization that most of us would freeze to death if our car broke down on a lonely road in a snowstorm; we have no clue how our technology works, and no knowledge of how to fix it. It's interesting how many recent films, tv shows, and novels take place in a "shit-hits-the-fan" scenario where organized society breaks down and most everyone is helpless because there's no more easy food, water, and electricity as the state of nature is restored.

While it might be true most people don't understand the technology they use, you are forgetting on key aspect of "shit-hits-the-fan" scenario: infrastructure. Infrastructure plays a key role in any modern technology. You might understand a specific technology backwards and forwards but if you don't have the tools, materials, or simply a way to transport them to the same place, you wouldn't be able to build said technology.

I'm not smarter than Samuel Clements or Shakespeare, or Isaac Newton, but I know how to work a computer better than any of them.

To be fair, no on is smarter than Isaac Newton, with the possible exception of Archimedes. Both of those dudes were off the charts. Any idiot can figure out a computer. Most people even after years of study could never come close to figuring out from scratch the stuff that Isaac Newton and Archimedes did. I'm convinced that if we could go back in time right before each's death, bring them to today, and give them a few extra years, either one could probably cure cancer or solve some of the weirdest questions we have in physics today. (After they got over the whole "Rela-- what? And what's so quantum about mechanics again?" thing.)

To me, intelligence isn't what you know, but your practical capacity and willingness to learn and discover new things.

The dumbest human alive today is much more intelligent than Joe Average in the 10th century (ymmv...).

I don't think that's true at all. It may be true that the dumbest human alive today knows more than Joe Average of the 10th century. It may even be true that because of poor nutrition while growing up the average 10th century person was less intelligent than the average person today. But I doubt the human capacity for intelligence is much greater today than it was 1,000 years ago.

I would agree that the human capacity for intelligence today is likely not all that different than it was 1000 years ago. With that said, the environment today makes greater demands on that capacity for intelligence.

Obviously a great deal of information was needed to survive, learning how to navigate geography without GPS or signposts, learning how obtain/grow food from the land, or learning and improving a trade. However, once you've mastered these fundamental skills needed to survive, you might not have the need or opportunity to learn much more.

Today's economy is highly specialized, so that while our basic needs are met with trivial effort, our focus is poured into specializations that have a great deal of technical depth, and often require someone to learn continuously in order to stay current or to stay ahead. For example, just being able to read contracts, use cash/credit, and drive/use public transport will get my basic needs met. But the rest of that effort goes into learning to use a computer, learning to navigate the idiosyncratic systems of a client's business, updating myself on regulatory guidance and figuring out to implement them, cross-communications with other departments. Lots of other people are doing my job are striving to be better than me, and there's a massive amount of information, sometimes across disciplines, that can be learned to differentiate ourselves as specialists.

Today's farmers still need to master the knowledge of the land that people learned 1000 years ago through trial and error. But they also need to learn about the intervening advances in the chemical analysis of soil, the use of antibiotics, advances in genetic modification, a multitude of fertilizers/pesticides, navigating government subsidy applications and working with insurance companies, etc. I'm sure that 1000 years ago would be able to learn the same material if they were born into today's society. Things have just gotten more complex and it forces us to develop a propensity for learning in order to thrive in today's society, we can't just learn a trade and stop keeping up since trades are advancing so quickly.

Knowledge and Intelligence are two separate but related things. Just because you are smart, doesn't mean you know Jack and Just because you know about Jack, doesn't make you smart.

As a kid, I would always get frustrated when watching some sitcom or cartoon and then the episode would occur when one of the characters would get hit on the head/walk into the lab at the wrong time... and invariably end up with greater intelligence. This in itself was not the annoying piece - It was how they would demonstrate this new found intelligence by having the character speak with a posh accent and use verbose technical jargon whilst spouting off facts off the top of their heads. . . All of this without ever having the opportunity to learn these new words or facts.

They were intelligent now because they magically knew things, not because of their ability to learn and apply knowledge

All we'll do is shift the goal posts. The dumbest human alive today is much more intelligent than Joe Average in the 10th century (ymmv...). And they were themselves considerably smarter than the crowd around at year dot.
And we'll all be considered much dumber when compared to the kid stuck in the corner for failing "Basic Space Piloting skills" in Kindergarten in the year 2500.

Nice try, but false. You might get away with averages (though I doubt that) or with knowledge (that would work, depending in the scale used), but I think the far end of the scale ("dumbest") has remained pretty constant. I'd imagine it has even dropped, because some severe brain damages are no longer fatal.
By the way as for the scale issue mentioned above, if you use "knows x percent of the world knowledge" 21st century Joe wouldn't look so damn bright anymore either.

All we'll do is shift the goal posts. The dumbest human alive today is much more intelligent than Joe Average in the 10th century (ymmv...).

What you are probably trying to say: "the dumbest human alive is doing better on an IQ test than Joe Average in the 10th century". Which might just be true, considering the emphasis on technology that then barely existed, and language, making literacy a key component in "intelligence".

The dumbest human alive todsy is certainly not more inteligent than an average in the 10th century.I even would chalange the idea that they know "more" (looking towards the US education system e.g.)They only know DIFFERENT things.

Can you cross the atlantic in a sailing ship? How many people do you know who can?For a typical 10th century Viking that was a no brainer.

Can you forge sword? You know one who can?

Can you navigate by the sun under fog? Using a crystal? Did you even know that is easy? Do you know one who can?Can you navigate by the stars?

Can you bake your own bread? Brew your own beer? Build a house on your own (in a few days/weeks)? Build a boat? Make your own tools?

Do you know when to bring out seeds? When the best time is to harvest? Can you forcast weather for a single day at least?

Can you provide simple first aid? Clean a wound? Sew a wound?

Can you make a fire from nothing? Can you hunt a deer? Open it? Skin it?

Btw, I'd define "stupidity" (in this case) as all those tendencies which will tend to send us (ie, earth inhabitants) toward a premature doom.

For example, while the desire to procreate might be necessary for our survival, the tendency to over-procreate is a sure recipe for early demise.

This is what I meant when I said that "good" is hard to define: things that are good on a small scale can be bad at a big scale. Everything has its level of balance, if continuity is the goal.

This leads to some interesting thoughts: let's suppose that mankind is doomed, but that the planet will continue on for millenia and eventually spawn intelligent life again. What should we do to inform our successors of all that we know? Aside from creating space probes that provide hallucinogenic memories to whatever random aliens it encounters, that is?

What should we do to inform our successors of all that we know? Aside from creating space probes that provide hallucinogenic memories to whatever random aliens it encounters, that is?

Big rocks. Big cubic rocks engraved with our technology. That way, when the elephants evolve into sentience, they can learn our wisdom and take up our self-extincting ways, until they have to send a generational colony ship to conquer another inhabited world. Hilarity will ensue.

Btw, I'd define "stupidity" (in this case) as all those tendencies which will tend to send us (ie, earth inhabitants) toward a premature doom."so you are saying the only way to be smart is to be able to see into the future?

The problem with that exploration is that a good part is already done, and abused of it by advertisers, politics and PR people, making us agree, not rebel against, or even reelect people no matter what they do.

There most probably is no better rock we can cling to. And if we find a rock that is good enoug and a way to get there, don't you think we'll mess it up just as badly as this one? People will be people, also on another planet.

And if we find a rock that is good enoug and a way to get there, don't you think we'll mess it up just as badly as this one? People will be people, also on another planet.

No. I think there will be a strong selection effect on who goes. A distant planetary population descended from those smart, tough, and brave enough to get there is going to be several sigma better than this one.

Actually we need to study them all. We really need to put more focus on research and science, and come up with a sustainable way to fund these researchers and scientists, at the same time getting the media away from proclaiming "A Scientist Said this so it must be true!" for every paper that hasn't been peer reviewed, and accepted.

The biggest problem is all this proclamation from unfinished science making science look bad. Because it seems like they are waffling back and forth on every issue. Because the process is messy, and with more complicated systems it gets messier. Average Joe Citizen sees this waffling back and forth as some way to push a political agenda, vs. Just making sure all that the science was done correctly.

It is imperative the human race generates settlements OFF this planet...everything else pales in comparison. Now as to whether or not the hairless monkeys are worthy of continued survival...that's a discussion for another forum.

With 70% of our planet's surface under at least 1 mile of water it makes more sense to develop ways of exploring (and exploiting) the oceans. We really have no idea what's down there. The "abyssal plains" of the '70s are disproved. What next?
Of course, a nice big phallic rocket with lots of noise, fire and smoke will thrill Joe SixPack but where's the payoff? Mining asteroids? You're kidding, right? We can't even get back to the moon.

Settlements beneath the waves could ease the burdens on the Earth's finite resources caused by exponential human population growth trends...but it does little to ensure our species continued survival if something untoward happens to the rock we sail through space on. And we're not shooting for the moon. An interplanetary expedition is next!

It would be the way to go if earth life shall survive in the long term - find other places in the galaxy to settle. Not all will be successful, and maybe humans won't thrive there but the chance is that some parts of life from Earth still can take foothold somewhere else.

The sun ages and will in a billion years or two be hotter and burn Earth - so much that our current talk about Global Warming is just petty bickering.

Due to speed-of-light limitations, huge fuel requirements, and the medical effects of microgravity and radiation exposure, I am not convinced an interstellar voyage will ever be survivable by humans, even as a multi-generational undertaking.

We can live on this rock just fine as long as we keep this environment survivable. Stabilize population size and advance technology to the point where we can live comfortably on renewable and recycled resources, and we're good until the sun becomes unstable. I count that as "long term."

Well, given that environmentalism has gone from a fringe ideology espoused by hippies to a major political platform, I'd say we're moving in the right direction. The real question is whether we'll get there in time.

Rather than disposable, let's call the Earth what it is at the moment: indispensable. Rather than imagine what interstellar plight or earthly blight could render us back to the dark ages, or worse, the primordial mix, let's acknowledge that such things are plausible. The lack of redundancy leaves us wide open for a disaster with no mulligan.

All things end, all thing are finite. The planet will get used up.We can, and should, do what is reasonable to slow the process, but we can not stop it.So we have to mitigate it, and look to outside sources. That process is energy intensive, and takes a long time. This is why we need to start now.

People in Europe and the US generally want about 2.1 children per couple, which puts them on a trajectory to negative population growth. If the rest of the world wanted the same thing, the problem would be solved. The prevailing explanation for the difference is economic: rich people prefer to have fewer kids and spend more resources on each one. So if we can bring countries like Niger and Jordan [wikipedia.org] to a higher standard of living, they also will want fewer kids and the global population will start to fall.

Don't dismiss the impact of space exploration. Just trying to reach the space, developing all the tech and materials required for even trying it, improved life down here. What is required to actually live there (in a maybe self-sustaining way) should have a even greater effect.

And there are global disasters that we know by earth history, or astronomy, that could strike us badly. For some of those scenarios, being able to live in controlled environments and have enough food even with far worse climate are not bad ideas. In short term the ocean colonization, and in long term the space one could deal with those scenarios.

It is imperative the human race generates settlements OFF this planet...everything else pales in comparison.

Stephen J. Gould once said somewhere that a species lasts on average 10 million years before going extinct. Unfortunately, I cannot remember his reasons if they were mentioned.

We are, what, 200,000 years old?

Aside from catastrophic celestial events or some doomsday weapon, what could knock us out? And why would colonizing another planet solve that?

War is something we can control (which means maybe we should concentrate on the Mind) and as far as something out there doing us in,well, there's not much we can do. And if there is something coming for us, our resources would be much better spent mitigating that threat than sending a handful of people god knows how many light years away. Colonization is just too impractical for it to be a viable option.

But tell us,what is so special about us that the Universe needs to have us around?

We should concentrate on research that makes our lives better; which includes exploring space. How else can we completely understand Earth without understanding other planets?

"Aside from catastrophic celestial events or some doomsday weapon, what could knock us out?"

So, aside from the most likely known scenario (and the second most likely one right along with it), what could knock us out? Catastrophic non-celestial events, such as a Yellowstone Caldera eruption, would hit us pretty freaking hard, and might just be enough to trigger some end-times focused religious zealots to trigger biological or nuclear weapons against their imagined enemies in 'retribution'. Getting self-sustaining colonies going somewhere other than this particular chunk of rock significantly reduces the chance that one such incident will off the entire species. It definitely has to be self-sustaining, though.

Actually it's just that human civilization would be set back A LONG way by a certain level of catastrophic disaster. Recovering from something like that would be a lot easier if we didn't lose our recovery mechanisms and resources - which can be averted by ensuring our base of supplies is large enough that it can't be wiped out by a local or regional disaster's consequences.

It's why I'm pretty enthusiastic about the asteroid miners - a few decades of what (and the staggering wealth out there) and it's possible we could broaden our resource base so far that even a global climate event wouldn't do enough damage that we couldn't recover from it.

Disallow private vehicles on the city streets from 6am to 6pm. Build massive parking lots outside the city center, and put in collective traffic stops and enough buses to transport people. Problem solved, can we get on with exploring out space now?

Disallow private vehicles on the city streets from 6am to 6pm. Build massive parking lots outside the city center, and put in collective traffic stops and enough buses to transport people. Problem solved, can we get on with exploring out space now?

Congratulations on solving the problem of people not being able to drive their vehicles to their destination of choice by preventing them from driving their vehicles to their destination of choice.

Congratulations on solving the problem of people not being able to drive their vehicles to their destination of choice by preventing them from driving their vehicles to their destination of choice.

Next: Solving hunger using stomach removal surgery.

That is why American society is so car-centric.

The problem elsewhere is usually "how can people travel from A to B", not "how can people drive their cars from A to B".

..and "Disallow private vehicles.." enables people to travel how?

Here's a clue for you: People wanting to drive places in cars isn't a USA thing; it's a worldwide thing, due to a number of fundamental practical differences between driving in one's own car and using public transport of any type.

The problem elsewhere is usually "how can people travel from A to B", not "how can people drive their cars from A to B".

..and "Disallow private vehicles.." enables people to travel how?

So did you accept my point?

Disallowing all private vehicles is extreme for a wide area, but common for small areas (bus lanes, bus-only roads). Increasing the cost to use a private vehicle (tolls, parking charges, fuel tax) can increase the overall efficiency, or decrease the overall costs. That's what I hope city planners aim for, rather than simply wondering how to fit more cars into the city.

One out of nine developers in this office drove here. It's not like we can't afford it: the preferable journey is by public transport (or cycling/walking). Depending on the exact journey, some combination of faster, cheaper, more reliable, less-stressful, can read/sleep/work, get exercise.

I am curious. In the cities you mentioned, do they not allow unscheduled emergencies to cause you to have to work any hours other than 9 to 5? Do they not ever have doctor's or dentists appointments, or have to go to run errands? Do they not ever go to lunch? Does the school never call and tell them their child is sick and they need to come pick them up? Stop by and pick up milk on the way home? These are all things I have had to use my car for, most of them in the last week, and public transportation would not have been a remotely viable option.

These are all things I have had to use my car for, most of them in the last week, and public transportation would not have been a remotely viable option.

Me too.

Imagine a world where everybody isn't self-centered ass:

We take all the money spent on fuel for driving cars around cities, and use it toward implementing a viable public transportation. I'll wager problem will be solved, with cash to spare. There is no law that says that you have to pick your kids up from school in your own car. The reason you do so is because there is no alternative. I'm merely pointing out that there could be a viable alternative. There is no new tech involved, just a shift in opinion.

I am curious. In the cities you mentioned, do they not allow unscheduled emergencies to cause you to have to work any hours other than 9 to 5? Do they not ever have doctor's or dentists appointments, or have to go to run errands? Do they not ever go to lunch? Does the school never call and tell them their child is sick and they need to come pick them up? Stop by and pick up milk on the way home? These are all things I have had to use my car for, most of them in the last week, and public transportation would not have been a remotely viable option.

That's because your public transport is crap. Your description sounds like whatever's in your city is particularly crap. Don't they even run trains/buses outside rush hour? They certainly do here, from about 6 to midnight, with a reduced service (15/30 minutes) overnight.

I don't own a car. Of the nine software developers in this office, one walked here, three cycled, four took trains, one drove in (and complained about the traffic, as he usually cycles). Four of these people have children (three schoolage, one younger). I understand that we all eat lunch, see doctors or dentists, and buy milk.

Last night (in the pub) a friend was grumbling that she'd volunteered her car to help move some equipment (she's a photographer), and would have to wake up early to avoid the traffic. It varies by the time of day and the exact journey, but it's normal for the public transport journey to be faster and more convenient. To someone who usually travels by public transport a car can seem inconvenient: you have to remember where you parked (and perhaps pay to do so), you have to return to where you parked even if you've walked a distance while shopping etc, you have to maintain, insure and fuel the car...

[...] but it's normal for the public transport journey to be faster and more convenient.

Unfortunately, that's not really true here in LA.

I live about 35 miles from work. My options to get to work are:

Bike all the way to work. I can do this in a little over two-and-a-half hours, if I don't mind some hills. It's a nice ride, but I have to get up way early because I'm competing with a bunch of cars otherwise and it'll take me longer.

Bike to the train station, take the train somewhere close to my destination, and bike or walk the rest of the way. I can bike to the train station in about an hour. It's a little over a mile from the end station to work. Assuming I bring my bike on the train, the whole trip takes a little over two hours, otherwise it's close to two-and-a-half hours.

So if we look at the public transit options, it'll still take me longer to get to work in rush hour traffic. Heck, I can bike to work and it's pretty much the same amount of time as biking to the train and taking that!

My grouse about "mass transit" in Los Angeles is most of the infrastructure is shared with cars. The Blue Line out of Long Beach, for example, runs right next to the road so the train has to stop for the same traffic lights as the cars. There's no such thing as an "express" train which misses some stops, so you end up stopping every three blocks. There are a few exceptions--the green line runs along the 105* and makes pretty good time. Downtown trains go underground.

My roomate takes the bus to work--her workplace subsidizes non-car drivers with the equivalent of an extra paycheck a year--and has the same complaint. The bus she rides gets on the 405* and crawls along with all the other cars. It then gets off and picks up some people and then gets back on the 405* and crawls along some more. She could drive to work faster than the bus merely because she wouldn't have to get off and pick-up people. Fortunately, her bus is an "express" bus, so it doesn't do it as much as a "local" bus and she just gets on and pulls out her iPad and catches up on stuff.

IMHO, LA won't see much uptick in public transportation until they prioritize public transit over people driving their cars. When it takes me 4x as long to take public transport versus driving, the only reason for me to take it is because I like to bike.

* - For those of you not from the LA area, I'm referring to I-105 and I-405. It's an LA thing...

It's not that we're car centric, it's that we're gently anti social and cars enable that.

Not seriously anti-social, despite what the anti-gun psychotics, or the pro-healthcare movement think. But it is gentle, and it is socially pervasive.

We don't want public transportation. We don't want to live in cities.

Yes, there are younger, highly socialized demographics that crave urban areas...public transportation, a new restaurant every night. A small, 'simple' apartment. But oddly enough that isn't a demographic majority here, despite some interesting redistricting implications.

Your fairly typical run-of-the-mill American wants to live/near/ a city in the suburbs, with a commute of strictly less than 25 minutes.

We want to sleep in a gentle cul-de-sac where it's quiet, there's no highway noise, and we can only see 3-4 neighbors houses.

We want to choose who we interact with, when we interact, and go home to our family and lawn. We feel safer there.

And that...is why the cars are a necessity. Because they give us an hour alone each day that we can't get at work, in our cubicles, at home with a wife/husband/kids/dogs. The car supports the suburban lifestyle that is not economical to service with public transit. And when it is economical -- we don't want to use it anyway.

Public transportation is creepy as hell. There's always a crack dealer, a hooker, a crazy guy who talks to himself and tries to talk/at/ (not with) you. There's always "that guy" holding his ipod high in the air flashing devil horns, rocking away hard bumping into people. There's that one day every other week where it's overcrowded and you're grinding up against people, or there's no place to sit comfortably because the seat was given up to grandpa or the girl in a wheelchair. And you know...I don't fault any of those people in particular -- even the guy obviously selling dimebags in the second to last row.

But even though it's their right -- it makes a lot of us just slightly uncomfortable.

Just uncomfortable enough that we'll move to the damned suburbs and take the car instead of the bus or train to deal with this shit. Yes, we would rather pay several thousand dollars a year in lease/loan/insurance/gas/upkeep than ride public transport. Yes, it makes poor economic sense. Guess what -- people trade money for happyness and quality of life. This is an example of the choice some people make.

Yes, there's millions of you that have no problem whatsoever with the situations I've just described.

But there's enough of us willing to say "fuck it, I'm not going to risk getting stabbed by someone whose mentally unwell just to get to work".

The car is our sanctuary, solitude, and our illusion of safety where we ignore the millimorts per mile and think we're safe from the psychotics in public transportation.

And to the people who call this antisocial or perverse... well... screw you. My illusorary peace of mind has value too.

Yeah, it has absurd implications for gas and oil consumption, for the environment. But that's really largely moot -- the problem with commuters aren't the cars. It's that employers require you in the office 5+ days a week in an era with home computers and VPNs.

People gripe about the suburbs, and yes, they use more gas than people in a city... but we could still cut traffic 80% or more by eliminating commuters. Then and only then am I willing to hear that suburbia is "unsustainable"

Disallow private vehicles on the city streets from 6am to 6pm. Build massive parking lots outside the city center, and put in collective traffic stops and enough buses to transport people. Problem solved, can we get on with exploring out space now?

This works in a lot places, like London, New York, or Chicago, but why doesn't it work in LA?

I had a couple business trips to LA and, maybe it was where I was at, but I was neither intimidated by the freeways or bogged down in traffic. In fact, I found the drivers to be way more considerate about allowing you to merge than I see here in KC.

If I could I would vote for the Earth system as a whole. It's all a huge interactive machine with many interconnections. The better we understand how it all works together, the better we understand how we fit into the picture the better we can manage our civilization. And I would include the Moon in the Earth system. Once we're established on the Moon the rest of the Solar System is much closer* than from the surface of the Earth.

If you look at a long enough time scale the only correct answer is outer space.
Lets be real. Earth is limited. There is only so much space (assuming resources are not an issue) and humanity (myself included) do not enjoy being packed into a smaller and smaller living space.
I say screw entitlements, and increase NASA funding tenfold. Let the stupid people take earth, and Ill see you on the beaches of HD40307g (otherwise known as planet Bob)

It would take more than a ten fold increase to just put a permanent habitat on the moon. If you want to put humans in another star system you're talking something more like a ten thousand fold increase and even then, those pesky laws of physics mean that the trip is going to take you a few hundred years minimum.

... to the substance of my existence and being able to separate it from the mortal ball and chain of my biological matter---avoiding the philosophical aspects, I'm implying something sort of... technological.

At its essence, L.A. rush hour is a product of industry, run on fossil fuels.

If we can change our lifestyle so people travel smaller distances every day, and use fewer cramped ground vehicles to get there, then we can go a fair way toward solving the climate change problem. And we'd have less traffic at rush hour.

That's exactly why I voted for that option, even though I think it was meant as a joke.

Redesigning our infrastructure and economy to be more sustainable is far more preferable than driving ourselves into the ground and needing to escape the planet sooner than we would have to otherwise. I'm all for space exploration, but let's not forget about our own backyards.

I just did a ctrl-f on this thread and nobody mentions the word woman.

I've been married for slightly over 2 years now, and quite frankly I would love to explore the hot body of a woman outside of my marriage more so than outer space. I've had good experiences with Russians, but then I am curious about Brazilians and Moroccans. I'm a liberal man, I can swing many ways.